Paul Mackerras <pau...@samba.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:43:38PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> slice array size and slice mask size depend on PGTABLE_RANGE. We
>> can't directly include pgtable.h in these header because there is
>> a circular dependency. So add compile time check for these values.
>
> Some comments below...
>
>> struct slice_mask {
>> u16 low_slices;
>> /*
>> - * This should be derived out of PGTABLE_RANGE. For the current
>> - * max 64TB, u64 should be ok.
>> + * We do this as a union so that we can verify
>> + * SLICE_MASK_SIZE against PGTABLE_RANGE
>> */
>> - u64 high_slices;
>> + union {
>> + u64 high_slices;
>> + unsigned char not_used[SLICE_MASK_SIZE];
>> + };
>
> Seems ugly to have to have a union just for that. Can't we do
> something like BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(u64) < SLICE_MASK_SIZE) instead?
Dropped the union from the patch
>
>> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static struct slice_mask slice_range_to_mask(unsigned long
>> start,
>> unsigned long len)
>> {
>> unsigned long end = start + len - 1;
>> - struct slice_mask ret = { 0, 0 };
>> + struct slice_mask ret = { 0, {0} };
>
> Wouldn't { 0 } suffice? Similarly in several places below.
Once i drop the union all these changes can be dropped.
-aneesh
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
